DOCSLIB.ORG

Semantic Restrictions of Forming Derivative Nouns in the Class of the Process Verbs Ponomaryova, Liliya

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Semantic Restrictions of Forming Derivative Nouns in the Class of the Process Verbs Ponomaryova, Liliya www.ssoar.info Semantic restrictions of forming derivative nouns in the class of the process verbs Ponomaryova, Liliya Veröffentlichungsversion / Published Version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Ponomaryova, L. (2016). Semantic restrictions of forming derivative nouns in the class of the process verbs. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 70, 37-43. https://doi.org/10.18052/www.scipress.com/ ILSHS.70.37 Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY Lizenz (Namensnennung) zur This document is made available under a CC BY Licence Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu den CC-Lizenzen finden (Attribution). For more Information see: Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.de International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences Submitted: 2016-03-25 ISSN: 2300-2697, Vol. 70, pp 37-43 Revised: 2016-06-03 doi:10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILSHS.70.37 Accepted: 2016-06-08 © 2016 SciPress Ltd., Switzerland Online: 2016-06-29 Semantic Restrictions of Forming Derivative Nouns in the Class of the Process Verbs Liliya Ponomaryova Oles Honchar Dnipropetrovsk National University, Ukraine E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: word formation, restrictions in word formation, types of semantic restrictions, word forming powers of process verbs. Abstract. Studying structural, phono-morphological, semantic, stylistic, word-forming and lexical conformities regulating syntagmatic connections in word-formation, requires studying system restrictions of the word-forming morphemes combinability, predetermined by the meaning of a word sign as well. The aim of the article is to identify semantic restrictions and those close to them in forming deverbative nouns from the process verbs. It was defined that such kinds of restrictions as semantic, semantic-pragmatic, semantic-stylistic, lexical and structural-morphological can counteract the possibility of the process verbs to take part in derivation processes. Semantic restrictions are located at the level of syntagmatic, differentiating semes and the abstract sub- category seme “becoming”. Aspect semes don’t influence the possibility of the process verbs to take part in the word formation processes. Semantic restrictions can be predetermined both by the presence and by the absence of definite semes in a semantic structure of a word. Introduction While investigating the content aspect of language units in modern linguistics, significant attention is paid to the problem of semantic restrictions in different language areas. Identifying semantic limits and restrictions of word-building morphemes combinability and their typical representation is a constituent of the research aimed at both studying the general problem of word formation development and developing the theory of the linguistic probability in reference to word formation. Restrictions in the morpheme combinability are considered either as a separate aspect of linguistic research (Y. Zemskaya [1, p.195], I. Ulukhanov [2, pp.214-243], H. Neuhaus [3], B. Hansen [4] and F. Plank [5]), or as a compulsory constituent of a general problem of word-forming morphemes combinability (Y. Kubryakova [6, pp.207-219] and M. Stepanova [7, p.156]), or are included in the concept of word-forming rules (restriction rules or blocking rules) (J. Erben [8, p.35], W. Fleischer [9], I. Barz [10, pp.56-57], E. Clark [11, p.789], D. Kastowsky [12], W. Motsch [13, p.113], J. Rose [14]. Semantic restrictions in word formation are one of the kinds of semantic combinability restrictions of the word-building morphemes which are conditioned by the meaning of a word sign, the essential feature of which is the lack of the semantic agreement between the constituents of a formed word. The common feature of both combinability of word-building morphemes and restrictions in combining the elements of the formed words is that any morpheme can not freely combine with any other morpheme [1, p.35]. Studying structural phono-morphological, word- building and lexical conformities regulating the syntagmatic connections in this language area, which imply “the connection of word-building formants with the motivation basis within the motivated word”, is closely connected with studying the systematic combinability restrictions of the word-building morphemes conditioned by a meaning of a word sign [2, p.14; 3, pp.79-80]. The aim of the article is to identify semantic and contiguous with them restrictions in forming deverbative nouns from the process words. The aim of the research determines the problems that should be solved: 1) to establish the circle of the productive and non-productive verbal lexis; 2) to define the role of the semantic restrictions as a constituent of the semantic combinability restrictions of word-building morphemes; 3) to separate the semantic restrictions from other types of SciPress applies the CC-BY 4.0 license to works we publish: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 38 Volume 70 combinability restrictions of word-building morphemes; 4) to establish the possibility and conditions of neutralizing the semantic and other kinds of restrictions. Theory In the scientific works dealing with the problem of system conformities of word-building morphemes, semantic restrictions are defined as incompatibility of a derivation morpheme and a productive base [1, p.194; 2, p.177; 6, pp.218-220; 7, p.218; 8, p.43; 12, p.161, 13, p.114]. A certain quality of word-forming morphemes [2, p.215] or correspondent semes lie in the basis of the semantic coordination [7, p.161]. As the composition and denoting of the system restrictions and conformities of joining word-building morphemes are classified by linguistic researchers in different ways: semantic, lexical, stylistic, pragmatic, word-forming, etymological, phonological, morphological, syntactical and non-syntactical (pragmatic), the classification of Y. Zemskaya [1, pp.195-204] which has much in common with the restriction classification suggested by V. Fleischer and I. Barz [10, p.56], is accepted as the basic one in this work. With the aim of analyzing the verb base and detecting the possibilities or impossibilities of their participating in the derivative process as well as establishing the restrictions blocking these possibilities, we applied the classification of H. Brinkman which is relevant for both syntagmatic and paradigmatic and includes the process verbs [15, p.122].The process verbs denote internal and external changes of a subject in time and space, its vital activities and functioning. The material for the research included simple German verbs taken from E. Matter’s dictionary [16, pp.9-31]. The verbs which denote movements, changes of the state, physiological processes, sounds and food taking can be referred to the class of the process verbs. They are mainly one-valence verbs with one optional (adverbial) valence. The semantic structure of transitive verbs denoting food taking contains the syntagmatic seme of the action object. The majority of the verbs denoting secretion and some verbs denoting physiological processes and changes of the state have the verb lexical base explicitly expressed by the seme of the object of action (speicheln, eitern, köpfen, rosten, ferkeln, kalben etc.), so they are characterized by the presence of the inner object. The semantic structure of the verbs included in the lexical seme of the verb (LSV), possesses a various degree of complexity. Thus, the verbs of the LSV denoting the change of the state contains not only corresponding syntagmatic, gender and differential semes, but also the abstract sub-category seme of “becoming” which denotes the internal development and internal movement as a result of self-development or self-movement or development under the influence of an external force [17, p.16]. The composition of the differentiating semes of the verbs is ranging from one to three, the more split up classification is also possible. The typical word-forming paradigm (TWP) of the process verbs is represented by nomen agentis, nomen subjekti, nomen actionis, nomen instrumenti, nomen loci, nomen quanti as well as nomen objekti and nomen resultatis (certain formations). The possibility of forming the derivative names of a person is conditioned by the presence in the grammatical structure of the process verbs of implicit seme “person” and, correspondently, its lack blocks up the formation of the derivatives with the above-mentioned semantics. Incompatibility of the verb semantics and the suffix semantics excludes from the productive base of the verbs of secretion a large group of motion verbs: sacken, ranken, sprudeln, sickern, münden; the verbs of changing the state allowing in the subjective position the nouns denoting the objects of animate and inanimate nature: trocknen, schmelzen, platzen, bräunen; a part of verbs denoting physiological process that are related to the representatives of the animal world: hecken, schmutzen,laichen; a significant part of the verbs with the LSV of sounds, characterizing the sounds made by animate creatures (excluding humans): bellen, mecken, heulen, quacken and made by inanimate subjects: rascheln, knistern, knacken, krachen. The presence of the seme “person” is a necessary but not always the only sufficient component of the verb semantic structure, because there are no derivative names from many verbs meeting the first condition. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences Vol. 70 39
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metalanguage and Encoding Scheme Design for Digital Lexicography
    MONDILEX: I УШ ИИ а Conceptual Modelling of Networking of '•ШАШЛ ЩЛ Centres for High-Quality Research in Slavic Lexicography and Their Digital Resources L. Stur Institute of Linguistics Slovak Academy of Sciences Metalanguage and Encoding Scheme Design for Digital Lexicography MONDILEX Third Open Workshop Bratislava, Slovakia, 15-16 April, 2009 Proceedings Bratislava 2009 MONDILEX: Conceptual Modelling of Networking of Centres for High- Quality Research in Slavic Lexicography and Their Digital Resources Ľ. Štúr Institute of Linguistics, Slovak Academy of Sciences Metalanguage and Encoding Scheme Design for Digital Lexicography Innovative Solutions for Lexical Entry Design in Slavic Lexicography MONDILEX Third Open Workshop Bratislava, Slovakia, 15–16 April, 2009 Proceedings Radovan Garabík (Ed.) The workshop is organized by the project GA 211938 MONDILEX Conceptual Modelling of Networking of Centres for High-Quality Research in Slavic Lexicography and Their Digital Resources supported by EU FP7 programme Capacities – Research Infrastructures Design studies for research infrastructures in all S&T fields Metalanguage and Encoding Scheme Design for Digital Lexicography Bratislava, Ľ. Štúr Institute of Linguistics, 2009. The volume contains contributions presented at the Third open workshop “Metalanguage and encoding scheme design for digital lexicography”, held in Bratislava, Slovakia, on 15–16 April 2009. The workshop is organized by the international project GA 211938 MONDILEX Conceptual Modelling of Networking of Centres for High- Quality
    [Show full text]
  • Monosemy and the Dictionary Henri Béjoint
    Monosemy and the Dictionary Henri Béjoint I. The Notion of "Monosemy" in Linguistics The notion of "monosemy" is often mentioned by linguists, though not always under that name—Cruse (1986), for example, uses "univocality", Catford (1983:24) discusses the use of terms such as "oligosemy" "eurysemy" and "stenosemy" — but it is hardly ever defined or exemplified. Also, few linguists have tried to evaluate the quantitative importance of monosemy: how many words can be considered monosemous in English and in other languages? When evaluations are attempted, the results are surprisingly divergent, the discrepancies probably being due to the indeterminacy ofthe definition of "monosemy". The situation is all the more surprising as "polysemy" is discussed in every single book about semantics. Lexical polysemy has been considered as an unfortunate imperfection by many linguists in the past (dialectologists, after Gilliéron, and structuralists), but nowadays it is often presented as an indispensable feature of language: without polysemy, language could not cope with the diversity and the variability of the notions to be expressed. If every single "referent" had a different name, the lexical code would impose an extraordinary burden on the memory of the language user (see Hagège 1985:126).1 Whichever attitude is adopted, polysemy is important for the semanticist: indeed, for some, it is "the very object of semantics" (Rey-Debove 1971:256). If monosemy is inseparable from polysemy, it must be an equally fundamental concept. Its study is particularly important in terminology, since it is one of the most often quoted characteristics of the term as opposed to the word, but it is also important in lexicology and lexicography.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Dictionaries As Emergent Archives of Contemporary Usage and Collaborative Codification
    Online Dictionaries as Emergent Archives of Contemporary Usage and Collaborative Codification Colleen Cotter Queen Mary, University of London John Damaso Arizona State University February 2007 Abstract Within the history of modern English lexicography, individual dictionary editors have had ultimate control over the selection, meaning, and illustration of words; extensive collaboration with contributors has been limited. However, Internet technologies that easily permit exchanges between a user and a database have allowed a new type of dictionary online, one that is built by the collaboration of contributing end-users, allowing ordinary users of dictionaries who are not trained lexicographers to engage in dictionary-making. We discuss a popular online slang dictionary called UrbanDictionary.com (UD) to illustrate how lexicographic principles are joined with Web-only communication technologies to provide a context for collaborative engagement and meaning-making; and to note the many characteristics and functions shared with the traditional print dictionary. Significantly, UD captures what most traditional English dictionaries fall short of: recording ephemeral quotidian spoken language and representing popular views of meaning. By relying on the users of language to select and define words for a dictionary, UD, which defines more than 1 million words, has in effect influenced access to and formulation of the lexis. Keywords computer-mediated communication, lexicography, slang, youth language; English Queen Mary’s OPAL #9 Occasional Papers Advancing Linguistics 1 Introduction English lexicography stems from a tradition of relatively limited functional collaboration, beginning with Samuel Johnson’s dictionary in 1755, in which editors overseeing numerous contributors held the ultimate authority over the selection, meaning, and illustration of words.
    [Show full text]
  • Unit 2 Structures Handout.Pdf
    2. The definition of a language as a structure of structures 2.1. Phonetics and phonology Relevance for studying language in its natural or primary medium: oral sounds rather than written symbols. Phonic medium: the range of sounds produced by the speech organs insofar as the play a role in language Speech sounds: Individual sounds within that range Phonetics is the study of the phonic medium: The study of the production, transmission, and reception of human sound-making used in speech. e.g. classification of sounds as voiced vs voiceless: /b/ vs /p/ Phonology is the study of the phonic medium not in itself but in relation with language. e.g. application of voice to the explanation of differences within the system of language: housen vs housev usen vs usev 2.1.1. Phonetics It is usually divided into three branches which study the phonic medium from three points of view: Articulatory phonetics: speech sounds according to the way in which they are produced by the speech organs. Acoustic phonetics: speech sounds according to the physical properties of their sound-waves. Auditory phonetics: speech sounds according to their perception and identification. Articulatory phonetics has the longest tradition, and its progress in the 19th century contributed a standardize and internationally accepted system of phonetic transcription: the origins of the International Phonetic Alphabet used today and relying on sound symbols and diacritics. It studies production in relation with the vocal tract, i.e., organs such as: lungs trachea or windpipe, containing: larynx vocal folds glottis pharyngeal cavity nose mouth, containing fixed organs: teeth and teeth ridge hard palate pharyngeal wall mobile organs: lips tongue soft palate jaw According to their function and participation, sounds may take several features: Voice: voiced vs voiceless sounds, according to the participation of the vocal folds e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Different but Not All Opposite: Contributions to Lexical Relationships Teaching in Primary School
    INTE - ITICAM - IDEC 2018, Paris-FRANCE VOLUME 1 All Different But Not All Opposite: Contributions To Lexical Relationships Teaching In Primary School Adriana BAPTISTA Polytechnic Institute of Porto – School of Media Arts and Design inED – Centre for Research and Innovation in Education Portugal [email protected] Celda CHOUPINA Polytechnic Institute of Porto – School of Education inED – Centre for Research and Innovation in Education Centre of Linguistics of the University of Porto Portugal [email protected] José António COSTA Polytechnic Institute of Porto – School of Education inED – Centre for Research and Innovation in Education Centre of Linguistics of the University of Porto Portugal [email protected] Joana QUERIDO Polytechnic Institute of Porto – School of Education Portugal [email protected] Inês OLIVEIRA Polytechnic Institute of Porto – School of Education Centre of Linguistics of the University of Porto Portugal [email protected] Abstract The lexicon allows the expression of particular cosmovisions, which is why there are a wide range of lexical relationships, involving different linguistic particularities (Coseriu, 1991; Teixeira , 2005). We find, however, in teaching context, that these variations are often replaced by dichotomous and decontextualized proposals of lexical organization, presented, for instance, in textbooks and other supporting materials (Baptista et al., 2017). Thus, our paper is structured in two parts. First, we will try to account for the diversity of lexical relations (Choupina, Costa & Baptista, 2013), considering phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic- discursive, cognitive and historical criteria (Lehmann & Martin-Berthet, 2008). Secondly, we present an experimental study that aims at verifying if primary school pupils intuitively organize their mental lexicon in a dichotomous way.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Shifts in the Sphere of Evaluative Units
    Center for Open Access in Science ▪ Belgrade - SERBIA 3rd International e-Conference on Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences http://centerprode.com/conferences/3IeCSHSS.html ISBN (Online) 978-86-81294-02-4 ▪ 2019: 201-210 _________________________________________________________________________ Semantic Shifts in the Sphere of Evaluative Units Tatiana Sallier St. Petersburg State University, RUSSIAN FEDERATION Department of Philology, St. Petersburg Abstract The purpose of the research is to trace some semantic processes occurring in the sphere of evaluative units – lexemes with “good” or “bad” element of meaning. The article is aimed at proving that evaluative units display a semantic shift from more concrete to more abstract meaning. Evaluative lexemes are known to include a denotative (more concrete) seme and an evaluative (abstract) seme. In the process of usage, the denotative seme is suppressed and the lexeme acquires purely evaluative meaning. In the process of “name calling”, “bad” words lose their denotative element and become pure invectives. The denotative seme may not even be known to the speaker. The loss of denotative meaning may occur in the process of word borrowing. Latin “paganus” – a rural dweller – came to mean “pagan” in European languages and the word “поганый” in Russian means just “bad”. Keywords: evaluative, pejorative, semantic shifts, denotative. 1. Introduction The article is aimed at tracing semantic tendencies operating in the sphere of pejorative evaluative lexemes – that is lexemes including an evaluative element of meaning. An evaluative lexeme may be purely evaluative – that is, bear no other meaning except evaluation. Such adjectives as English “good” and “bad” or Russian “хороший”, “плохой” may serve as examples.
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Morphology and Lexical Semantics
    248 Beth Levin and Malka Rappaport Hovav 12 Morphology and Lexical Semantics BETH LEVIN AND MALKA RAPPAPORT HOVAV The relation between lexical semantics and morphology has not been the subject of much study. This may seem surprising, since a morpheme is often viewed as a minimal Saussurean sign relating form and meaning: it is a concept with a phonologically composed name. On this view, morphology has both a semantic side and a structural side, the latter sometimes called “morphological realization” (Aronoff 1994, Zwicky 1986b). Since morphology is the study of the structure and derivation of complex signs, attention could be focused on the semantic side (the composition of complex concepts) and the structural side (the composition of the complex names for the concepts) and the relation between them. In fact, recent work in morphology has been concerned almost exclusively with the composition of complex names for concepts – that is, with the struc- tural side of morphology. This dissociation of “form” from “meaning” was foreshadowed by Aronoff’s (1976) demonstration that morphemes are not necessarily associated with a constant meaning – or any meaning at all – and that their nature is basically structural. Although in early generative treat- ments of word formation, semantic operations accompanied formal morpho- logical operations (as in Aronoff’s Word Formation Rules), many subsequent generative theories of morphology, following Lieber (1980), explicitly dissoci- ate the lexical semantic operations of composition from the formal structural
    [Show full text]
  • Studies in the Linguistic Sciences
    UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS Llb'RARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN MODERN LANGUAGE NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materialsl The Minimum Fee (or each Lost Book is $50.00. The person charging this material is responsible for its return to the library from which it was withdrawn on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli- nary action and may result in dismissal from the University. To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN ModeriJLanp & Lb Library ^rn 425 333-0076 L161—O-I096 Che Linguistic Sciences PAPERS IN GENERAL LINGUISTICS ANTHONY BRITTI Quantifier Repositioning SUSAN MEREDITH BURT Remarks on German Nominalization CHIN-CHUAN CHENG AND CHARLES KISSEBERTH Ikorovere Makua Tonology (Part 1) PETER COLE AND GABRIELLA HERMON Subject to Object Raising in an Est Framework: Evidence from Quechua RICHARD CURETON The Inclusion Constraint: Description and Explanation ALICE DAVISON Some Mysteries of Subordination CHARLES A. FERGUSON AND APIA DIL The Sociolinguistic Valiable (s) in Bengali: A Sound Change in Progress GABRIELLA HERMON Rule Ordering Versus Globality: Evidencefrom the Inversion Construction CHIN-W. KIM Neutralization in Korean Revisited DAVID ODDEN Principles of Stress Assignment: A Crosslinguistic View PAULA CHEN ROHRBACH The Acquisition of Chinese by Adult English Speakers: An Error Analysis MAURICE K.S. WONG Origin of the High Rising Changed Tone in Cantonese SORANEE WONGBIASAJ On the Passive in Thai Department of Linguistics University of Illinois^-^ STUDIES IN THE LINGUISTIC SCIENCES PUBLICATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN EDITORS: Charles W. Kisseberth, Braj B.
    [Show full text]
  • Morphemes by Kirsten Mills Student, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, 1998
    Morphemes by Kirsten Mills http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/caneng/morpheme.htm Student, University of North Carolina at Pembroke, 1998 Introduction Morphemes are what make up words. Often, morphemes are thought of as words but that is not always true. Some single morphemes are words while other words have two or more morphemes within them. Morphemes are also thought of as syllables but this is incorrect. Many words have two or more syllables but only one morpheme. Banana, apple, papaya, and nanny are just a few examples. On the other hand, many words have two morphemes and only one syllable; examples include cats, runs, and barked. Definitions morpheme: a combination of sounds that have a meaning. A morpheme does not necessarily have to be a word. Example: the word cats has two morphemes. Cat is a morpheme, and s is a morpheme. Every morpheme is either a base or an affix. An affix can be either a prefix or a suffix. Cat is the base morpheme, and s is a suffix. affix: a morpheme that comes at the beginning (prefix) or the ending (suffix) of a base morpheme. Note: An affix usually is a morpheme that cannot stand alone. Examples: -ful, -ly, -ity, -ness. A few exceptions are able, like, and less. base: a morpheme that gives a word its meaning. The base morpheme cat gives the word cats its meaning: a particular type of animal. prefix: an affix that comes before a base morpheme. The in in the word inspect is a prefix. suffix: an affix that comes after a base morpheme.
    [Show full text]
  • From Phoneme to Morpheme Author(S): Zellig S
    Linguistic Society of America From Phoneme to Morpheme Author(s): Zellig S. Harris Source: Language, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1955), pp. 190-222 Published by: Linguistic Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/411036 Accessed: 09/02/2009 08:03 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=lsa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language. http://www.jstor.org FROM PHONEME TO MORPHEME ZELLIG S. HARRIS University of Pennsylvania 0.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Morpheme Master List
    Master List of Morphemes Suffixes, Prefixes, Roots Suffix Meaning *Syntax Exemplars -er one who, that which noun teacher, clippers, toaster -er more adjective faster, stronger, kinder -ly to act in a way that is… adverb kindly, decently, firmly -able capable of, or worthy of adjective honorable, predictable -ible capable of, or worthy of adjective terrible, responsible, visible -hood condition of being noun childhood, statehood, falsehood -ful full of, having adjective wonderful, spiteful, dreadful -less without adjective hopeless, thoughtless, fearless -ish somewhat like adjective childish, foolish, snobbish -ness condition or state of noun happiness, peacefulness, fairness -ic relating to adjective energetic, historic, volcanic -ist one who noun pianist, balloonist, specialist -ian one who noun librarian, historian, magician -or one who noun governor, editor, operator -eer one who noun mountaineer, pioneer, commandeer, profiteer, engineer, musketeer o-logy study of noun biology, ecology, mineralogy -ship art or skill of, condition, noun leadership, citizenship, companionship, rank, group of kingship -ous full of, having, adjective joyous, jealous, nervous, glorious, possessing victorious, spacious, gracious -ive tending to… adjective active, sensitive, creative -age result of an action noun marriage, acreage, pilgrimage -ant a condition or state adjective elegant, brilliant, pregnant -ant a thing or a being noun mutant, coolant, inhalant Page 1 Master morpheme list from Vocabulary Through Morphemes: Suffixes, Prefixes, and Roots for
    [Show full text]
  • Verbs of 'Preparing Something for Eating by Heating It in a Particular
    DEPARTAMENTO DE FILOLOGÍA INGLESA Y ALEMANA Verbs of ‘preparing something for eating by heating it in a particular way’: a lexicological analysis Grado en Estudios Ingleses Fabián García Díaz Tutora: Mª del Carmen Fumero Pérez San Cristóbal de La Laguna, Tenerife 8 de septiembre de 2015 INDEX 1. Abstract ................................................................................................................................. 3 2. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4 3. Theoretical perspective ........................................................................................................ 6 4. Analysis: verbs of to prepare something for eating by heating it in a particular way: cook, fry and roast. ................................................................................................................... 9 4.1. Corpus selection .............................................................................................................. 9 4.2. Verb selection ................................................................................................................ 11 5. Paradigmatic relations ....................................................................................................... 13 5.1. Semantic components and lexematic analysis ............................................................... 13 5.2. Lexical relations ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]